Shikanosuke wrote:No. Drugs and relationships are entered into primarily (as in, in our Western societies) by option. Rarely do I think a female,of weak or strong character, enters into a relationship with a man merely by meeting him and him beating her into submission.

I'll agree to that. I'd be kind of a fool not to.

But unless there is force or threat involved (verbal abuse often takes the form of threat, whether direct or indirect), there is no abusive relationship. Abuse might come a ways down the road after the relationship happens, but it still requires the creation of a power differential through struggle - and that is when choices start getting curtailed. With drug abuse, it's a lot easier to see where a person starts damaging his own agency. In relationships between two people, it is more difficult to make that call because the relationship exists in social space and is the responsibility of both parties collectively and each individually. I seem to be privileging the former (that whatever happens in a relationship should be considered primarily a collective responsibility - with one or both parties legislating and rationalising actions) and you the latter (that what happens in a relationship can ultimately be assigned to one of the individuals in it, where one individual does both the legislation and the rationalisation at any given time).

Shikanosuke wrote:For instance, as I and others have previously mentioned, in many relationships the choices of a victim in an abusive relationship are not a) stay and get abused or b) leave and get beaten to death. Rather they are (or may be, as we all agree all situations are different) a) stay and get abused or b) leave and deal with the effects (these may be fear of solitude, lack of money, etc etc). Staying, as in accepting the worse option, for fear of the effects of the latter option can be seen as an addition. If you are addicted to the desire of being in a relationship, not leaving a relationship when all rational indicators scream for you to get as far away as possible, is a sign of addiction. Or psychosis, take your pick really.

Again, it's never really quite as simple as the 'rational' prudential calculus, deciding which would be worse in a utilitarian sense. It's been fairly well-established by current psychology that people are socially constructed, and many actions can be traced back to dialogical character-forming experiences (for example, in early childhood from parental guidance, or later through other close relationships). These kinds of pathological personalities occur when an authoritarian figure is constantly curtailing dialogical freedoms to the point where the dialogue is avoided even internally, such that a person 'learns' to assume himself to be inferior even if that inferiority is only imagined.

Shikanosuke wrote:Lastly, slaves are not voluntarily involved in their captivity. Slaves, in most all cases, DO receive only two physical and real options a) stay and live (or even die) and b) leave and be hunted. Even if they try to choose the latter, they may not physically be able to accomplish it. Slaves, for instance those in America, did not volunteer their service. They were sold/traded by their kin and other businessmen. Unlike drug-addiction and abusive relationships, there is no voluntarism here.

Interesting. This does sort of conflict with your earlier point, though, that most women don't enter a relationship voluntarily expecting to meet a guy and then getting beaten into submission by him. I would argue that voluntarism is curtailed significantly in abusive relationships, even if they didn't start out that way.

You have a point about there being some voluntarism in abusive relationships, though I would say that poor judgment of character (as the root cause of a bad relationship) is not the same thing as weakness of will. A woman might want to leave an abusive relationship but be physically restrained, threatened with physical restraint, threatened with legal restraint or other kinds of social restraint.

Shikanosuke wrote:I do not absolve, ever, the abuser. But I also do not, ever, absolve in anyway the victim. Victim indicates they are being abused, but it doesn't stipulate they can't take part in the abusing themselves.

I agree completely. Both abuser and victim play a role in the abuse. The questions are, what are the roles, why are they followed, and how can they be escaped?

Shikanosuke wrote:However, these things you've mentioned also don't stand the test of scrutiny also. They may persist, they may fester, and they may still be held by idiot individuals. But those idiot individuals still need to be told they are idiot individuals.

Does that shake said idiot individuals of their stupid and incorrect beliefs?

Shikanosuke wrote:The better perspective, for instance, is to look at how our looking at them stupid has made Southerners feel about themselves. Being from the South, for instance, has made me extremely concious of the ridiculous notions espoused by the sterotypes held of my region. Whats the effect? I take every step to attempt not to entertain such notions, and I'm not the only one. I've personally witnessed Southerners, especially belonging to governmental institutions, do everything in their power to take actions and stnaces to distance themselves from such positions which objective scrutiny shows to be stupid.

Oh yes, I realise this tendency. Stephen Colbert is another such Southerner.

But there are other people - a lot of other people - who have the opposite reaction. I watched the Republican National Convention back in September. Rather than admitting their party had been wrong on foreign-policy and economic issues and needed to change direction, they took refuge inside a persecution mentality, and blamed the 'elitists' who had presented the facts. Many Southern politicians do the same thing, defending a culture which is persecuted and under siege from the outside.

This would be analogous to an outsider telling a woman point-blank to dump her bastard boyfriend, and the woman dismissing the outsider's criticism because he just 'doesn't get him' the way she does. I've seen this happen myself. The woman hasn't changed her mind about her bastard boyfriend; indeed, all the outsider has done in this case is driven her further into her bad situation.

Stupid? Oh, you'll get no argument from me; it is. But the approach of just monologically saying so doesn't win very many such battles, psychologically speaking.

Shikanosuke wrote:Or, you can do as I have done, explain to them why they are objectively incorrect about their beliefs. Growing up in the South, I pretty much have had to maintain a strong vigil against the idiocy of stuff like this, and I don't care to know the reasons anymore (because they rarely exist). This being said, I'm not saying you should run up to abuse victims and yell in their face. But I also don't think you should make any steps to forgive their actions, or not tell them the objective reality of their actions/situations. Afterwards, I don't care if you try to wean answers out of them to help them in their reeducation.

Okay, it looks like we're actually on the same page here.

I just happen to think that telling them the objective reality of their actions/situations is of limited usefulness compared to getting them to realise it for themselves. The first still needs to be done, but in a spirit of compassion, the way Martin Luther King, Jr did from Birmingham Gaol.

Here's a question: why did Obama win Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and New Mexico when Kerry lost all of them? I think there are multiple reasons, but one among them would definitely be empathy. In terms of policy stances, Kerry and Obama differed not on essential aims but on emphasis. Kerry followed advice to the effect that he should focus his campaigns primarily on the northern urbs and cut the rednecks loose. Obama let the rednecks take the stage at the Democratic National Convention. Though he didn't hesitate to say that the Iraq War had been wrong, that the Republican economic policies had been hurting the country and that we needed to seriously re-evaluate our cultural priorities when it came to race relations, Obama always invited the rednecks to join the dialogue.

Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.

WeiWenDi wrote:But unless there is force or threat involved (verbal abuse often takes the form of threat, whether direct or indirect), there is no abusive relationship.

Hardly, direct or indirect threats ("i will kill you" or "i would kill anyone who left me" or anything related) would certainly qualify as involved in abusive relationship. That doesn't mean force or threat have to be the only factors in an abusive relationship which makes it hard for a female to leave. You can denigrate someone's self-worth, or guilt someone into staying with you, or any range of other dialetical mindgames which are often played out in emotionally abusive relationships. Because someone does mention the word 'kill' or 'hurt', directly or indirectly, doesn't mean you're not in an abusive reltionship.

Abuse might come a ways down the road after the relationship happens, but it still requires the creation of a power differential through struggle - and that is when choices start getting curtailed. With drug abuse, it's a lot easier to see where a person starts damaging his own agency. In relationships between two people, it is more difficult to make that call because the relationship exists in social space and is the responsibility of both parties collectively and each individually.

It doesn't make a difference, to compare the two, just because one is more easily pin-pointed to where one begin to be detrimental and harder in the other. The both share the same aspects, hard to tell or not. I'm sure it takes some addicts more time than others to get hit hard, this doesn't change anything except a timetable. Secondly, it doesn't matter if choices are curtailed, they are realistically non-existant. They do exist, therefore, regardless of the reasoning if they are not utilized they are self-afflictions.

I seem to be privileging the former (that whatever happens in a relationship should be considered primarily a collective responsibility - with one or both parties legislating and rationalising actions) and you the latter (that what happens in a relationship can ultimately be assigned to one of the individuals in it, where one individual does both the legislation and the rationalisation at any given time).

Both started voluntarily, and can be ended voltunarily. In fact, for any progress to be made, they have to be ended voluntarily. The drug-addict who is forced through detox (be it in the form of prison, hospital, or locked in a room whatever) does not accomplish anything without doing it himself, as thats the real progress.

Again, it's never really quite as simple as the 'rational' prudential calculus, deciding which would be worse in a utilitarian sense.

No. I would suggest that typically we engage exactly in this kind of cost-benefit analysis, even if its subconcious. Many women may know something is bad for them, but still choose to live with the expected burdens.

It's been fairly well-established by current psychology that people are socially constructed, and many actions can be traced back to dialogical character-forming experiences (for example, in early childhood from parental guidance, or later through other close relationships). These kinds of pathological personalities occur when an authoritarian figure is constantly curtailing dialogical freedoms to the point where the dialogue is avoided even internally, such that a person 'learns' to assume himself to be inferior even if that inferiority is only imagined.

Fine. Indoctrination plays a part in later subjugation. I don't have a problem with that. The junkie may be responding to socio-economic pressures as well (or even, as you note, psychological ones). That doesn't change the volutary engagement. it only provides a rationalization for it.

Interesting. This does sort of conflict with your earlier point, though, that most women don't enter a relationship voluntarily expecting to meet a guy and then getting beaten into submission by him. I would argue that voluntarism is curtailed significantly in abusive relationships, even if they didn't start out that way.

I don't see where you see a contradiction. I say women don't enter into a clear abuse situation voluntarily or conciously, but that they enter into relationships which become them. Slaves, if given the same choice up front, are going to choose the same as women did and not enter into it. But the slaves don't get any voluntary choice of either situation. the situation is largely irrelevant due to the fact no volutary action is even available. that is why the comparison to slaves and druggies/women is not very substantial.

You have a point about there being some voluntarism in abusive relationships, though I would say that poor judgment of character (as the root cause of a bad relationship) is not the same thing as weakness of will. A woman might want to leave an abusive relationship but be physically restrained, threatened with physical restraint, threatened with legal restraint or other kinds of social restraint.

All of these causes are true. Its just as likely, in our society, that they don't exist and that women stays on even so. These would be self-afflicting problems. In fact, with some of the people I've known, many people thrive on drama.

I agree completely. Both abuser and victim play a role in the abuse. The questions are, what are the roles, why are they followed, and how can they be escaped?

I think the role of the abuser is fairly clear-cut. The victim is not. They exist both as the unfairly subjugated and the voluntaristic victim at the same time (depending on the situations these vary I assume however)

Does that shake said idiot individuals of their stupid and incorrect beliefs?

Yes! Some it very much well does. Some it doesn't. First of all, whether or not it does help of not, it doesn't stand to reason you shouldn't always state the objective truth. Secondly, the truth always helps many people through many different effects. Surely it won't change everyones situation, but the truth and criticism being available is certainly always a beneficial thing. Especially if there is ever a desire to change ones mind.

But there are other people - a lot of other people - who have the opposite reaction. I watched the Republican National Convention back in September. Rather than admitting their party had been wrong on foreign-policy and economic issues and needed to change direction, they took refuge inside a persecution mentality, and blamed the 'elitists' who had presented the facts. Many Southern politicians do the same thing, defending a culture which is persecuted and under siege from the outside.

This would be analogous to an outsider telling a woman point-blank to dump her bastard boyfriend, and the woman dismissing the outsider's criticism because he just 'doesn't get him' the way she does. I've seen this happen myself. The woman hasn't changed her mind about her bastard boyfriend; indeed, all the outsider has done in this case is driven her further into her bad situation.

Stupid? Oh, you'll get no argument from me; it is. But the approach of just monologically saying so doesn't win very many such battles, psychologically speaking.

It might, it might not. I can't say definitely one way or the other, as such would a speculation upon a huge number of people that I'm not familiar with. But I still don't see any reason not to do so, especially for those it will help. People may escape the facts and seek refuge in some sort of rationalization, but they still need to be told. Especially if subconciously it sinks in.

Okay, it looks like we're actually on the same page here.

I just happen to think that telling them the objective reality of their actions/situations is of limited usefulness compared to getting them to realise it for themselves. The first still needs to be done, but in a spirit of compassion, the way Martin Luther King, Jr did from Birmingham Gaol.

I'm ok with this, but forgive me if its done completely with compassion. I'm not saying its wrong to include compassion, but I think human beings need criticism as well. I'm sure scolding has some side-effects but its not like its wasted on the general public.

Here's a question: why did Obama win Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado and New Mexico when Kerry lost all of them? I think there are multiple reasons, but one among them would definitely be empathy. In terms of policy stances, Kerry and Obama differed not on essential aims but on emphasis. Kerry followed advice to the effect that he should focus his campaigns primarily on the northern urbs and cut the rednecks loose. Obama let the rednecks take the stage at the Democratic National Convention. Though he didn't hesitate to say that the Iraq War had been wrong, that the Republican economic policies had been hurting the country and that we needed to seriously re-evaluate our cultural priorities when it came to race relations, Obama always invited the rednecks to join the dialogue.

I get your line of logic, people are sometimes more receptive to an idea when they feel included in the process. Thats fine, but I don't care much to absolve them of the facts that they were errant to begin with.

I guess we seem to have different opinions of the usefulness of criticism and empathy.

WeiWenDi wrote:I guess we seem to have different opinions of the usefulness of criticism and empathy.

No, you just don't seem to be very empathic to begin with.

I've been reading - with great interest - WeiWenDi's posts in this thread, and agree with much of what he has said, but this will be my last post on the subject.

People are useful - people are good. human beings are societal creatures - as Aristotle said, we are creatures of the polis, that is, beings having to do with city-things - and it is better to rehabilitate people, to add them to our society and make them contributors, than to leave them to death, or worse.

We can look at people who make dumb decisions, and say to hell with them, and retreat to our world of intelligence and good behavior, and condemn the "lesser" people, but we've been doing that for thousands of years. Somehow the world doesn't seem any better for it.

Liu Yuante wrote:No, you just don't seem to be very empathic to begin with.

For someone who wants us to not make categorization and assumptions about scenarios/people we don't personally know you seem to have no problem doing so here. I consider myself to possess the capacity for empathy, but I also have the capacity for objectivity as well. Excuse me if my starting point is not one of immediate empathy. If you've been reading, as you note, you'll realize I stated one must proceed the other, some Wei seems not to have a problem with much either. In a conversation where one side is polarized by empathy, there should be some objectivity.

I've been reading - with great interest - WeiWenDi's posts in this thread, and agree with much of what he has said, but this will be my last post on the subject.

but not mine?

People are useful - people are good.

Based on? People are not good, we learn to be good.

human beings are societal creatures - as Aristotle said, we are creatures of the polis, that is, beings having to do with city-things - and it is better to rehabilitate people, to add them to our society and make them contributors, than to leave them to death, or worse.

Human beings are societal creatures, and as such, we share the capacity for cruelness etc etc as well as the ability for goods. Many people cannot be rehabilitated, or do not wish to.

We can look at people who make dumb decisions, and say to hell with them, and retreat to our world of intelligence and good behavior, and condemn the "lesser" people, but we've been doing that for thousands of years. Somehow the world doesn't seem any better for it.

I find this to a weak line of argument. How have we been doing this? Are we ignoring all of the humanitarian efforts which have occurred? If people are good, as you state, then they have been attempting to rehabilitate people all the while. It would seem, if you are to believe your previous statement, that we've been doing both strategies since the dawn of man, and we still don't seem any better for it. Makes you consider what will make us any better for it.

Shikanosuke, when I say understand their pattern of thinking that got them into the situation, I don't mean condone, sympathize, or feel sorry for them. It's merely a starting point.

I had a dear friend who I consider closer then a sister live in an abusive relationship for 12 years. Understanding her thought process was invaluable. Her husband was a drug addict, and spent 8 of the 12 years in jail. At one point, he beat her to the point of unconsciousness and stole her wedding rings to buy drugs. We spent many hours on the phone over the years, and because I knew her thought processes, I could bring out the things that were contradicting with things she'd told me in previous conversations.

We joke now about her unfounded fear of being alone. She says, 'I was alone the whole time, but too blind to see it.' BTW, incase you're wondering, her ex husband has been out of the picture for 8 years

Sad yes that it took so long for her to see, but at least she finally did.

As for being objective, I had to be. I had to step back and look at her situation from all angles, or at least from as many as I could. I knew all the blame didn't rest solely in the hands of the abuser, she had made choices along her paths and lied to herself many times. I needed her to see those things.

wow wwd you truly have skills beyond the confines of these forums. but the real reason girls get into bad relationships is cuz they pick crummy guys (oh yeah, i'll understand if no one likes me after this thread). I have some very good female friends, even those whose knowledge and skill rival my own but the sad thing i've discovered is that almost all women are equally stupid when it comes to guys. it's not incompetence, cuz they know what they're doing. I can't count how many times I've seen the guy who actually did love the girl and was always there for her get constantly overlooked and eventually discarded over time. If a guy is willing to give her his all what does she have to pursue? it's already been given her. obviously i dont completely understand this logic (for it is, in fact, hardly logic at all) but it seems that women like a little danger and uncertainty, which opens the door for the abuse. good guys get overlooked and disregarded and sex is as popular as candy so where indeed is the virtue in all this? if you do things right you get desired results. If you take shortcuts and be stupid, well, the rest is history

Honey, that goes both ways!! I've seen plenty of girls spend their lives in love with fellas who always go for the "skinny, popular, good looking" girl!!

The way I see it, everyone makes mistakes and you can't know you're in a crummy relationship until it sarts becoming crummy!! You can't expect someone to have a relationship with someone else just because that person is in love with them, that never works out in the long run and the two people end up more depressed and hurt than ever!!

For abusive relationships, let face it, from the outset, we never know what's going to happen!! All we know is that, if it does turn sour, we need to support those we know who are stuck in that situation; it's awful feeling inadequate, I just hope others will find the strength to start out on their own!! I've had guys "in love" (I hate that term but that's what they use) with me, trying to convince me that they're right for me but I know I don't returm those feelings!! It wouldn't be right nor fair if I came out of a silly relationship and into another where there isn't that equality of shared love and respect!!

If becoming enlightened or an intellectual means I must become arrogant and coldly cynical about the world around me then I'd gladly remain a fool for the rest of my life!!

weiyan405 wrote:but the real reason girls get into bad relationships is cuz they pick crummy guys (oh yeah, i'll understand if no one likes me after this thread).

Which is caused by?

I have some very good female friends, even those whose knowledge and skill rival my own but the sad thing i've discovered is that almost all women are equally stupid when it comes to guys.

rrright. I'm not sure how you can even qualify such a statement.

it's not incompetence, cuz they know what they're doing. I can't count how many times I've seen the guy who actually did love the girl and was always there for her get constantly overlooked and eventually discarded over time. If a guy is willing to give her his all what does she have to pursue? it's already been given her. obviously i dont completely understand this logic (for it is, in fact, hardly logic at all) but it seems that women like a little danger and uncertainty, which opens the door for the abuse. good guys get overlooked and disregarded and sex is as popular as candy so where indeed is the virtue in all this? if you do things right you get desired results. If you take shortcuts and be stupid, well, the rest is history

So in the end it comes down to the fact (to you) that women are naturally inclined toward risk-taking, promiscuity, and ill-fated suitors? Sorry. Your argument epitomizes the kind of person who says they respect/understand women yet speak to them/of them as inferiors.

weiyan405 wrote: I have some very good female friends, even those whose knowledge and skill rival my own but the sad thing i've discovered is that almost all women are equally stupid when it comes to guys.

I think what you mean is that women are usually irrationnal when it comes to guys (as in a relationship with a guy). This is not entirely wrong, as long as you point out that guys are pretty much the same. In violent relationships, the man is often just as confused as his girlfriend considering he also believes he loves her, but still hurts her.

If a guy is willing to give her his all what does she have to pursue? it's already been given her.

I dont think this is possible. There is always another step. Things like love, family building, self development and so on and so forth.

If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

well shikan's definately female lol. too defensive not to be. i shudder to think of the alternative but sorry for offending the women's lib ceo . men and women are very different in some ways, as we all well know. yes sunxia (i'm not sexist btw, i promise :p) it is a sad fact that most guys tend to care a lot more about sex and status with their buddies than a girl's feelings, and when a girl is with a dude like that every other guy around him can see right through his game and wonder why she can't. and you wanna know how to tell if it's a crummy relationship? do your homework BEFORE it becomes a relationship. make 'em wait before you give them your dignity (sex for acceptance, even on a primal subconscious level, equals lack of dignity and self respect) and let time pass (God forbid even a couple of years) and see what behavior is consistent over time and what's erratic and/or impulsive behavior, and develop your relationship. remember you gotta be best friends first and foremost and that takes time to develop. plus if he's just trying to get you to sleep with him he isn't gonna wait for it that long and he'll leave, saving you the hardship of wasting your life with him. there is no fool-proof way to completely eliminate the threat of a bad relationship but prevention is the best defense for anything. you all got gramma's and pappa's right? I bet at least 75% are still together if not seperated by death. what did they know that people these days don't? so instead of getting defensive about my point of view (this doesnt apply to everyone, of course) maybe you should consider the merit in it. if you don't believe me just ask your grandma or grandpa why they stayed together so long? they didnt jump to conclusions or live off impulses. they did it the right way. sex is too available these days so what's gonna make the "dogs" out there change? they know they can get it easily if they just bs you long enough for you to drop your initial defenses and they know they dont have to care about the girl in order to achieve their goals. and i've seen a lot of good guys get the short end of the stick (that's the nice way to put it) and other guys see that so if both sexes, at least as a majority, see kindness as a form of useless weakness, then what motivation is there in human interactions to pursue or embody it in any way? not saying people dont even pretend to be nice but i shouldnt have to spell that out either. to that end it will be minimized to bare necessity, thus you have the guy who really dont care how your day went or how things make you feel but will act like it when the relationship is fresh or he wants something. and btw shikan i was a missle ballistics tech during my stint in the army, and i am just a year away from recieving my teacher's certification in world history, health and wellness and anatomy, plus i will achieve a coaching certification in 3 semesters and have a 159 iq, even tho i dont give that too much accord as it is relevant only to pattern recognition, but i dont think that makes me dumb and i can come back with more than just impulsive ranting, which on some planets is recognized as intellect. i'm at least a couple steps above the amoeba i'm sure and i have female friends who are a lot smarter than me, but they still fall for the worst guys and it just stupifies me. it doesnt take psychosis or a closed mind to observe that there are people rowing against the current wondering why they're not getting anywhere.

Last edited by weiyan405 on Fri Mar 27, 2009 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.